Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

It appears to me that the data is in and that gays suffer at the very least from a disproportionate number of various physical, emotional, and mental problems. This is explained by the APA as being the fault of society.

Is anyone seriously arguing against this basic assertion? I get the idea people are, but I find nothing at all to support anything other than these conclusions, broad as they may be.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

If memory serves the less than 1% of the population is gay is a claim that was discredited long long ago. (I can’t find the references to it right now) It stems form a Chicago magazine phone survey that limited the definition of homosexual to ridiculous levels. To qualify as gay one had to have been sexually active exclusively with the same gender for more than ten years. Anything else was classified as heterosexual. I recall reading an interview with a prominent gay writer who noted that on that survey he would have been listed as heterosexual because ten years ago he was a virgin.

I believe you are right. I was only going by what was given, rather than try to start up a different topic altogether...

Last I saw, and has been some time and I can not recall the source now (I should find it, when I have the time), the stat for gays within the population is something like 2-7%. Which seemed to me (and still does) to be a rougher estimate than I would prefer, but it is all that i have seen in quite some time.

 

[BigBadWlf]

While I have had occassion to be irritated with NARTH's lack of effectiveness, the accusation of it being a hate group comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and not any official hate registry. It's definition of hate includes the following:

"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

So if you hand out tracts against gay marriage, you might qualify.

No one yet has been willing to give me the direct link to this center's supposed list of 12 or whatnot gay "hate groups", but the link I have found is here.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

That is incorrect. “Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification. “ -Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[Ben-AG]

I have two things to say about using AIDS or other STDs as an argument against gays and gay marriage. First, ultimately, it does not matter what a persons sexual orientation is; regardless of the sexual orientation if couples are in an ongoing monogamous relationship they are not (as a general rule) going to pass on an STD or AIDS). So, at least to me, the idea that STDs may be a problem in the homosexual community is actually one of the best reasons to promote same-sex marriage. I understand you disagree with homosexual acts however, not everyone (not even all Christians) believe as you do.

I cannot accept some of your reasoning on this one. First of all, your first assertion, that BECAUSE STDs are so prevalent in the homosexual community is all the more reason to promote marriage because marriage inherently is monogamous, assumes that homosexuals will uphold the monogamy! Now, I know that this is highly heated debate, but, even if heterosexuals could maintain monogamy as well as heterosexuals do, that still does not eliminate the spread! Monogamy in heterosexual relationships is not perfect either. And, if it is found that heterosexuals are more likely to engage in sexual interactions outside of a monogamous, or supposedly, monogamous relationships, all the more reason to be concerned.

Also, I have already presented my opinion on same-sex marriage and never stated I was completely opposed to allowing those who really feel they need to be unified to do so. On the contrary, I was opposed to simply outlawing it so as to not offend and thus ostracize the people I am actually trying to help, as opposed to your reasons of legalizing for the sake of containing any diseases they may have. I do not believe that's the way to go about it. I want to help people before they engage in high-risk behavior and expose themself to a community that is proven to have more frequency of disease.

But, you, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

Second, if we are really going to go after gays for their rate of STDs shouldn't we use the same standard to go after Blacks. Blacks in Africa are far and away the largest group that are infected with AIDS and other STDs. Even in the United States, Blacks (as I recall) have the majority of those infected with AIDS/HIV and Washington, D.C., largely because of their large Black population, is the most infected city in the United States.

I'm sorry..this is kind of silly. I can not help a person for being black. They do not have a choice in the matter. Homosexuals have a choice.

<-- Praying for my safety after the previous statement.

Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.

And, sorry, I guess one last point -- if gays are the most immoral because of the percentage infected by AIDS, does that make lesbians the most moral (lowest AIDS/HIV infections and chance of getting infected)?

I never made the assertion that "gays are the most immoral." I mentioned the prevalence of diseases amongst the gay community to show one reason why I am concerned for them. There are obviously more concerns that I have for individuals within that community which are all encompassing.

Hope this helps.

-Ben

 

[BigBadWlf]

It appears to me that the data is in and that gays suffer at the very least from a disproportionate number of various physical, emotional, and mental problems. This is explained by the APA as being the fault of society.

Is anyone seriously arguing against this basic assertion? I get the idea people are, but I find nothing at all to support anything other than these conclusions, broad as they may be.

Your assertion that gays suffer from disproportionate number of various physical, emotional, and mental problems is incorrect. What has been shown is that gay youths suffers more from physical and emotional abuse after coming out and that abuse leads to disproportionate number of various physical, emotional, and mental problems. As noted in several of the studies gay youth who were not abused had the same rate of mental health issues as their non-abused heterosexual counterparts

Its being abused, physically, emotionally and even sexually that is the cause, not the sexual orientation

Your misrepresentation the APA here is also incorrect

 

[Wyzaard]

I've been all over the NARTH website. It's about as hateful as a kum-ba-ya get together ma'am.

Well... only if you ignore their genocidal intent to wipe out homosexuality.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I'm sorry..this is kind of silly. I can not help a person for being black. They do not have a choice in the matter. Homosexuals have a choice.

<-- Praying for my safety after the previous statement.

Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.

That is the very fact, it is a lifestyle choice, not a choice of attraction/orientation.

But, the "Black people" in question, those with AIDS, are almost all at fault. The fact is, majority of people overall are responsible for the actions that lead to their contraction of HIV/AIDS. Regardless of sex, color, or otherwise. So the statement of "they have no choice, but gays do" is rather pointless.
Lets not compare race to sexuality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I cannot accept some of your reasoning on this one. First of all, your first assertion, that BECAUSE STDs are so prevalent in the homosexual community is all the more reason to promote marriage

The thing is that there is no evidence that STD&#8217;s are a problem among homosexuals any more than they are a problem among heterosexuals. Paul Cameron made such a claim&#8230;but he also fabricated data to produce those results.

because marriage inherently is monogamous, assumes that homosexuals will uphold the monogamy! Now, I know that this is highly heated debate, but, even if heterosexuals could maintain monogamy as well as heterosexuals do, that still does not eliminate the spread! Monogamy in heterosexual relationships is not perfect either. And, if it is found that heterosexuals are more likely to engage in sexual interactions outside of a monogamous, or supposedly, monogamous relationships, all the more reason to be concerned.

There is no reason to assume that gays and lesbians would be less monogamous. Research has shown that when compared to heterosexuals gays are no more and in some studies slightly less promiscuous than heterosexuals
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.
Vierod E. A. &#8220;Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior in Norway&#8221; Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine.
Dolcini &#8220;Demographic Characterizes of Heterosexuals with Multiple Partners: The National AIDS Behavioral Surveys&#8221;
Bryant and Demian &#8220;Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples&#8221; Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services

Also, I have already presented my opinion on same-sex marriage and never stated I was completely opposed to allowing those who really feel they need to be unified to do so. On the contrary, I was opposed to simply outlawing it so as to not offend and thus ostracize the people I am actually trying to help, as opposed to your reasons of legalizing for the sake of containing any diseases they may have. I do not believe that's the way to go about it. I want to help people before they engage in high-risk behavior and expose themself to a community that is proven to have more frequency of disease.

If you are speaking of HIV/AIDS the &#8220;community that is proven to have more frequency of disease&#8221; would be non-white heterosexuals

I'm sorry..this is kind of silly. I can not help a person for being black. They do not have a choice in the matter. Homosexuals have a choice.

What choice exactly do gays and lesbians have aside from the choice to be honest about who they are?

Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.

So you personally do not or would not love someone else&#8230;.you just have "inclinations"

 

[Philothei]

Not allowing people who believe differently than you to live their life in peace with the same legal rights you have is not love.

I do not recall saying this either where I said we should infringe anyone's legal rights?

 

[Philothei]

So you are saying that false claims about gays and lesbians are wrong?
…claims like:
Homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years
Homosexuality is a pathology
Homosexuals have greater instances of depression, suicide, anxiety, mental illness because they are homosexuals
Homosexuals are more likely to be substance abusers and alcoholics
The majority of homosexuals have a STD
Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered

Correct?

Some of the above are biased and some are facts.. Who is to say that some are not? The pathology I mentioned and you all jumped on me and others are facts. Those symptoms can signal to a pathology and they are observed in people who identify themeslves with this lifestyle. The higher abuse of alchohol and depression etc. are "symptoms" that are present... To say they are not there or they are false is barely proof ... that they do not exist.
Now again I do not go around judging these individuals and their disposition. This is not my place to do as a Christian And no it is different to disagree with their lifestyle and want to impose your ideas and morality on others who disagree with it. No one can deny me to love them though ....

 

[LightHorseman]

Those symptoms can signal to a pathology and they are observed in people who identify themeslves with this lifestyle. The higher abuse of alchohol and depression etc. are "symptoms" that are present...

Um, wait a second... methinks you are confusing causation and correlation.

Yes, its true that homosexuals have a higher rate of alcoholism and depression than heterosexuals... however, is this because they are homosexuals? Or is it because they are constantly stressed because of the condemnation and scorn society heaps upon them? Or is it something else again? Its not always the first impression that is the right one, and it is ALWAYS a good idea to question the inferences drawn from information someone with a bias is telling you.

 

[Ben-AG]

That is the very fact, it is a lifestyle choice, not a choice of attraction/orientation.

But, the "Black people" in question, those with AIDS, are almost all at fault. The fact is, majority of people overall are responsible for the actions that lead to their contraction of HIV/AIDS. Regardless of sex, color, or otherwise. So the statement of "they have no choice, but gays do" is rather pointless.
Lets not compare race to sexuality.

I totally agree that we shouldn't compare race to sexuality but to say that sexuality is the same as race is too bold without proof of sexual preference being linked to a genetic predisposition. Without the facts, they are just opinions.

But, for the sake of argument, if a genetic predisposition was the sole reason for one's sexual preference would it make it right?

 

[LightHorseman]

I totally agree that we shouldn't compare race to sexuality but to say that sexuality is the same as race is too bold without proof of sexual preference being linked to a genetic predisposition. Without the facts, they are just opinions.

But, for the sake of argument, if a genetic predisposition was the sole reason for one's sexual preference would it make it right?

Genetics are amorral, neither good nor bad. However, if one's behavioural traits is based on one's genetics, at the very least it is wrong to call them UNNATURAL, whether or not those traits are seen as beneficial or not is a different discussion.

 

[David Brider]

I'm sorry..this is kind of silly. I can not help a person for being black. They do not have a choice in the matter. Homosexuals have a choice.

I doubt that. I mean, personally, I've never chosen who to find physically attractive. It's not a case of seeing a person and thinking, "right, I'm going to find that person attractive"; rather it's a case of seeing a person and thinking, "hmm, I find that person attractive." I suspect that it's pretty similar for everyone else, gay, straight or bi.

David.

 

[Maren]

I cannot accept some of your reasoning on this one. First of all, your first assertion, that BECAUSE STDs are so prevalent in the homosexual community is all the more reason to promote marriage because marriage inherently is monogamous, assumes that homosexuals will uphold the monogamy! Now, I know that this is highly heated debate, but, even if heterosexuals could maintain monogamy as well as heterosexuals do, that still does not eliminate the spread! Monogamy in heterosexual relationships is not perfect either. And, if it is found that heterosexuals are more likely to engage in sexual interactions outside of a monogamous, or supposedly, monogamous relationships, all the more reason to be concerned.

No, I'm not assuming anything. But what better way to encourage monogamous relationships than to provide legal benefits for couples who vow to be faithful to each other? Sure, some will fail but should we end opposite sex marriage because some people cheat and spread STDs or the high rate of divorce?

Also, I have already presented my opinion on same-sex marriage and never stated I was completely opposed to allowing those who really feel they need to be unified to do so. On the contrary, I was opposed to simply outlawing it so as to not offend and thus ostracize the people I am actually trying to help, as opposed to your reasons of legalizing for the sake of containing any diseases they may have. I do not believe that's the way to go about it. I want to help people before they engage in high-risk behavior and expose themself to a community that is proven to have more frequency of disease.

But, you, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

Sorry, but again same sex sex is not the high risk activity. It is promiscuous sex that is the high risk activity -- and that includes promiscuous opposite sex sex.

I'm sorry..this is kind of silly. I can not help a person for being black. They do not have a choice in the matter. Homosexuals have a choice.

<-- Praying for my safety after the previous statement.

But it isn't a "Black transmitted disease", much less a "Homosexually transmitted disease". Again, if you are going to criticize gays for STDs for their behavior than should we not also criticize Blacks for the sexual behavior that appears to be prevalent that causes Sexually Transmitted Diseases? Blacks have the same choice that homosexuals do (or, for that matter, that heterosexuals do).

Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.

Yet how would it effect you if you were told that you could never be with the person you loved? Well, you could see them sometimes and be friends but no intimate relationship and no sex. Particularly if you lived in a land that was predominantly another religion that did not believe in opposite sex sex and so voted to refuse recognition to those relationships and individuals often would belittle opposite sex couples they saw together in public.

I never made the assertion that "gays are the most immoral." I mentioned the prevalence of diseases amongst the gay community to show one reason why I am concerned for them. There are obviously more concerns that I have for individuals within that community which are all encompassing.

Hope this helps.

-Ben

Yet for some reason the statistics about homosexuals are only about gay men -- lesbians tend to be forgotten, especially when the data for lesbians does not lend to "concerns" when the gay males do. And this is another "trick" used by anti-gay groups, they compare the statistics between all heterosexuals but compare them to only homosexual males when females lower the statistics for both sides.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Some of the above are biased and some are facts.. Who is to say that some are not? The pathology I mentioned and you all jumped on me and others are facts.

None are based on fact.

The life expectancy of 42 years is one of the more famous lies of the religious right. After Paul Cameron was expelled from the APA for falsifying research data and misrepresenting the legitimate scientists he created the number and self published it. He created the number by selecting obituaries form small run, even mimeographed obituaries form gay newspapers form San Francisco at the height of the AIDS crisis. He rejected any obituary where the deceased was &#8220;too old&#8221; to better reduce the age he could claim homosexuals lived top be.

The claims about substance abuse, murders and STD&#8217;s also come from Cameron and his ISIS survey&#8230;the research that got him expelled from the APA&#8230;he got very few responses and he apparently didn&#8217;t like the results he got from the gays who responded to his survey so he tossed those answers and filled out the surveys for gay men the way he wanted them to answer and then reported how horrible and disease ridden gay men were

Facts don&#8217;t involved made up data or data tossed out because it doesn&#8217;t fit what the researcher wants to claim.



Homosexuality is not a mental illness. The people who define what mental illness is and is not say it&#8217;s not a mental illness. In 1973 those small handful of professionals clinging to the notion that somehow homosexuality was an mental illness , even though it did not fit the base definition of mental illness were asked to produce evidence that it was, in fact a mental illness&#8230;a pathology. No evidence was produces and 40 years later still no evidence has been produced.

Those symptoms can signal to a pathology and they are observed in people who identify themeslves with this lifestyle. The higher abuse of alchohol and depression etc. are "symptoms" that are present... To say they are not there or they are false is barely proof ... that they do not exist.

Once again it is not being gay that is the problem. It is being hated and abused that is the problem. The research demonstrates that the homosexuals how are not raped, beaten and/or emotionally abused by their parents do not have any greater incidence of mental illness than their non abused heterosexual peers.

It isn&#8217;t being gay that is the problem, its being hated that is the problem

Now again I do not go around judging these individuals and their disposition.

You just did

This is not my place to do as a Christian And no it is different to disagree with their lifestyle and want to impose your ideas and morality on others who disagree with it. No one can deny me to love them though ....

Once again how is making false statements and calling an entire minority sick an act of love?

 

[Ben-AG]

The thing is that there is no evidence that STD’s are a problem among homosexuals any more than they are a problem among heterosexuals. Paul Cameron made such a claim…but he also fabricated data to produce those results.

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

-"Since 2005, data reported to CDC has included gender of partners for persons with syphilis and in 2007, 65 percent of all P&S syphilis cases were among MSM, based on data from 44 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, the disparity between male and female case rates has grown consistently. The P&S syphilis rate among males is now six times the rate among females, whereas the rates were almost equivalent a decade ago , suggesting that increases in men have largely been among men who sex with men."

STD Surveillance, 2007 - Men Who Have Sex With Men

-"In 2007, 79% (range: 58-90%) of MSM were tested for urethral gonorrhea, 37% (range: 5-51%) were tested for rectal gonorrhea, and 58% (range: 5-83%) were tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea."

-Overall, the percent of MSM tested for HIV in STD clinics increased between 1999 and 2007. In 2007, a median of 70% (range: 38-87%) of MSM visiting STD clinics who were not previously known to be HIV-positive were tested for HIV, while 44% (range: 23-55%) were tested in 1999.


CDC - STD Surveillance, 2007 - Figure 37

Figure 37. Primary and secondary syphilis — Reported cases* by stage and sexual orientation, 2007

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
-"MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005."
-"The number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents."


This is alot of information for one man to make up.

If you are speaking of HIV/AIDS the “community that is proven to have more frequency of disease” would be non-white heterosexuals

Semantics. Refer to above references.

What choice exactly do gays and lesbians have aside from the choice to be honest about who they are?

The choice of a healthy lifestyle for one. I am inclined, as a man, to be extremely promiscuous and have sexual intercourse with as many women as would allow me to do so. While doing so may not be extremely detrimental to my health, although I am exposed to many more diseases, I choose not to. I feel as if I have already said this...

So you personally do not or would not love someone else….you just have "inclinations"

Someone else? I'm not sure what you mean. Elaborate please.

 

[Maren]

In 1973 those small handful of professionals clinging to the notion that somehow homosexuality was an mental illness , even though it did not fit the base definition of mental illness were asked to produce evidence that it was, in fact a mental illness…a pathology. No evidence was produces and 450 years later still no evidence has been produced.

Four hundred fifty years? Somehow I think you meant 35 years.

Maren(who just couldn't resist)

 

[BigBadWlf]

I totally agree that we shouldn't compare race to sexuality but to say that sexuality is the same as race is too bold without proof of sexual preference being linked to a genetic predisposition. Without the facts, they are just opinions.

to date there are over two thousand studies showing sexual orientation is inborn.

Can you provide legitimately published evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?
That it is the result of how one was raised?
That it is the result of one&#8217;s relationship with either parent?
That it is the result of childhood sexual abuse/trauma?
(I will save you time&#8230;there are no studies showing any of these things)

But, for the sake of argument, if a genetic predisposition was the sole reason for one's sexual preference would it make it right?

having dark skin is inborn&#8230;does that make it right?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Four hundred fifty years? Somehow I think you meant 35 years.

Maren(who just couldn't resist)

Oops...fixed…what can I say? I have big fingers